Nothing wrong with you or me saying it maybe, but there is something tasteless and ghoulish and wrong with Hillary Clinton saying assassination.

If his ex-wife carries a five million dollar life insurance policy naming RHHardin as beneficiary, it would be tasteless, ghoulish and even wrong for RHHardin to publicly announce that his ex-wife's car could blow up next time she turns the ignition key. Unless RHHardin is a sociopath who can't even make eye contact while issuing a non-apology apology.

This story is so full of phony outrage it makes me ill. Even if you don't accept the truth of the matter that Hillary was making a point that there is lots of precedence, for a variety of reasons, why the Primary season does not have a cut off point of June, it is still faux outrage.

So she mentioned the elephant in the room. It isn't like lots and lots of people haven't voiced the same in private. I've had at least 10 people over the last 3 months, bring up the possibility that some crazy left winger or far right winger will make sure Obama never sees the inside of the White House. These weren't political activists, just ordinary voters, voicing their concerns.

I've had at least 10 people over the last 3 months, bring up the possibility that some crazy left winger or far right winger will make sure Obama never sees the inside of the White House.

Two examples of many I could mention:

"We were safe for a while, except we got to talking to a couple of Americans who were SO excited abt the Democrats winning the White House back and how embarrassing it was to travel while Bush was in control. I let them have it, and told them if that lying thief Clinton got in it would be a disaster...

...and that Obama would be assassinated way before he got to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

- Cooper Brown, The Independent, UK, May 22 2008

And then today, Gore Vidal, of all people, has a piece of advice for Obama:

He said that Barack Obama, considered most likely to win the Democratic nomination for November's presidential election, should beware of "dark corners". "I would say to him don't stand in a dark corner when you hear a gun is going off. It's dangerous there."

And for good measure, he let out this gem:

"Despite his long-standing relationship with the Clintons, he backed Mr Obama for the nomination. "I hope it's Obama," he said. "He's been pretty well vetted in the electoral process. I'm thrilled that the black race is able to move ahead."

Whether or not this is the case, it ought to be pointed out that Hillary Clinton said nothing about Obama being assassinated. You don't need to take my word for it; see for yourself. (The comment in question is about 1:00 in, I believe.) The emphasis is on June, not just in that sentence but in the surrounding context; not assassination.

On the other hand, Obama's wife was the one who brought up, months ago, the the fact that, as a black man, he risked being shot at a gas station.

"The Coopster is back and refreshed from the South of France. I actually had a ball and managed to pop into Cannes, to the festival, and do some business, which was totally cool.

I know Jack Black from way back when I was working for Dennis Hopper in LA. He's a cool schlub of a guy and great fun to party with. He was promoting a movie about kung fu pandas and you could tell that he wanted to let off a bit of steam after the launch.

He had a huge suite at The Carlton and we got through most of the minibar and then ordered five bottles of the most expensive champagne on the room service menu. We went out on to the terrace and fired off the corks towards the huge yachts bobbing in the bay. Totally smashed, we put on two of the huge panda suits that they'd used for the launch and ran around the hotel having fun.

It was my particular pleasure to spot that asshole of a movie critic Mark Kermode in the lobby – he described our idea for a Paris Hilton movie as "Babylon Burning". I never quite understood what that meant, but it wasn't a compliment.

Anyway, there he is in his rocker-boy finery – tight suit, red tie and greasy quiff. We grabbed a couple of fire extinguishers and let the dumb fuck have it. It was very therapeutic – what all artists should regularly do to up-their-own-ass critics.

When I got back to Hôtel du Cap I proudly told Victoria what we'd been up to and even she laughed her skinny ass off. Nobody likes critics."

As I noted (~ comment #120)in the earlier post on this subject, http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-justifying-staying-in.html#commentsit's undeniable that HRC is looking for some disaster (though not likely physical) to stop BHO from winning.

If you assume that she's 1) smart, and 2) knows her history. Then, she knows that she's not going to win this nomination. That's why she's not pointing to closely fought and extended nominating situations where, in the end, the person behind always loses. Even though those situations are better analogies to the current campaign. So, she cherry picks the Kennedy example because the only way she can win is for a disaster (not necessarily physical) to strike BHO. My comment from the other post describes what kind of disaster she's working to create with her political fratricide, which is usually off limits because, of course, attacks from family are more devastating than attacks from enemies--which is why we need quick action from the SDs and the DNC (HRC isn't going to win by retroactively using the results of elections where candidate participation was prohibited at the request of the DNC, and the voters took actions knowing that their votes wouldn't apply to the nomination process: this isn't a banana republic, not to mention that FL D party leaders said that a revote was logistically impossible regardless of the candidates, and any MI revote would have kept out BHO supporters who went for their second (or strategic) choice in the R primary, which DID count, while BHO wasn't on the non-counting (as HRC said) D ballot (following the no participation pledge, but it was impossible, under the rules, for him to remove his name from the FL ballot), and polling shows that BHO is more popular in MI than HRC with indies and Rs, so there is plenty of reason to assume that he would have supporters that went into the R contest for the second choice (and Kos was pushing the strategic option too.), and it is important to note that in FL the Ds did go along with the Rs in supporting the early primary date, and some of them were actively pushing this, not to mention that there was D opposition to decoupling this primary date from the other elections issues in the legislation at question.) [Sorry about that sentence, I was trying to cover the bases so that I could avoid follow up comments, so I kept going.]

I believe that her retelling of WJC's nomination is chosen to imply that she wouldn't be the first Clinton to come from behind in a long running nomination contest. Of course, in reality Bill didn't have a come from behind June. He was advancing toward an inevitable win, and his so called competitors weren't running an intra-party victimology and scorched earth attack strategy of desperation. But, facts don't matter for HRC. She's counting on an unquestioning media and busy voters who don't have any time for or interest in fact checking and contrasting the political history and nuancefrom previous nominations.

It is a bit ghoulish and tasteless, yes. But the media was really big on Obama assassination fantasies earlier this year. See here for a January roundup of assassination fantasies, and here for a February NYT piece about people who are kind of worried about his getting assassinated. There was also one piece I remember -- I cannot find it now -- where the Obama supporter spun out her elaborate Obama-assassination fantasy in pretty graphic detail, with him clutching his breast in surprise, and the crowd going silent, etc. etc. Back in February, it almost seemed like some of his most fervent supporters wanted him to be assassinated, to fulfill their dark image of America, and (incidentally) galvanise their political movements by giving them a new martyr.

So it's not like people haven't been dreaming ghoulish dreams about Obama getting assassinated. It's just that the fantasies have mostly been from his supporters, and Clinton is his opponent. It is ghoulish in either case, of course, but I find it odd that people are this outraged about it, given that it's been a pretty open and above-board element of the discourse in this primary contest for so long.

It's interesting that you have such an active imagination that you can conclude there is a group of BHO supporters who wish the worst for him. But, you can't see why some would prefer for a candidate with zero percent (practical) chance of winning to not support their continuing on by pointing to the assassination of another nominee from the past. I don't think she meant the worst for BHO, but I can see why folks could be bothered by her comments.

You must be able to see that she could have better phrased her comments, as she tried to communicate that she's looking for BHO to be destroyed by nonlethal means.

This is getting silly. Even the Politico is now conceding that they jumped the gun with this "story." Thirty minutes after Politico posted the story, their mea culpa concedes, they got around to watching the video, which was a "a deflating experience" because it was "clear that Clinton’s error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale." It "seems pretty obvious that ... what Clinton meant ... [and] actually said" is “something like this: 'Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.'”

This is a non-story, whipped into a frenzy by a controversy-hungry media that didn't do their job right.

1) If they haven't done so, they should clarify that HRC isn't advocating the physical end of BHO.

2) They should clarify that HRC is advocating the political end of BHO, because he's already won this nomination, and she needs him to be destroyed by some now unknown (nonlethal) event, or convergence of events.

3) They should let their audiences know that HRC's current position isn't similar to that of WJC in his 1992 primary. And, the 1968 example is completely irrelevant to this year, the nominating process/rules and timeline are TOTALLY different from our situation.

4) They should note that the precise focus on the assassination aspect of June 1968 can only be an effort to show that candidates can be unexpectedly removed from the running. Presumably HRC believes that she can set a precedent by combining identity politics and being a victim and attacking such that she will have the same effect as an assassin, without the violence. Obviously, she's not counting on an assassin (or any other unforced BHO implosion) because she doesn't need to continue with her political fratricide to take advantage of that situation.

5) They should point out that this primary fight is only the second time that HRC has lead a fight for something substantial where there was strong opposition; health care reform was the first. [And, the editorial and opinion media can go further by predicting that HRC will fail here just as she failed with health care because long term success requires more tools (such as patients, persuasion, teaching ability, self awareness, and being conciliatory) than knee capping and manipulating when you're in a pinch. Then the left wing opinion folks can go further by noting this is why HRC should be stopped by the SDs. And, of course, the wingnut opinion folks can note that this is why HRC should continue without intervention, because the "chaos" should continue.]

1) If they haven't done so, they should clarify that HRC isn't advocating the physical end of BHO.

2) They should clarify that HRC is advocating the political end of BHO, because he's already won this nomination, and she needs him to be destroyed by some now unknown (nonlethal) event, or convergence of events.

3) They should let their audiences know that HRC's current position isn't similar to that of WJC in his 1992 primary. And, the 1968 example is completely irrelevant to this year, the nominating process/rules and timeline are TOTALLY different from our situation.

4) They should note that the precise focus on the assassination aspect of June 1968 can only be an effort to show that candidates can be unexpectedly removed from the running. Presumably HRC believes that she can set a precedent by combining identity politics and being a victim and attacking such that she will have the same effect as an assassin, without the violence. Obviously, she's not counting on an assassin (or any other unforced BHO implosion) because she doesn't need to continue with her political fratricide to take advantage of that situation.

5) They should point out that this primary fight is only the second time that HRC has lead a fight for something substantial where there was strong opposition; health care reform was the first. [And, the editorial and opinion media can go further by predicting that HRC will fail here just as she failed with health care because long term success requires more tools (such as patients, persuasion, teaching ability, self awareness, and being conciliatory) than knee capping and manipulating when you're in a pinch. Then the left wing opinion folks can go further by noting this is why HRC should be stopped by the SDs. And, of course, the wingnut opinion folks can note that this is why HRC should continue without intervention, because the "chaos" should continue.]

Asked by South Dakota newspaper the Argus Leader why she didn’t buy the argument that the party was fracturing because of the prolonged contest, Clinton said “my husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.”

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she continued. “You know i just dont understand it...

"I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee."

Especially if I'm assassinated in California in June like Bobby Kennedy was. By a crazed sexist nut with a hand gun. That would unite the party. Of course we'd lose in the fall to Nixon, er, I mean, McCain. But we'd be united just like in '68 and '92 and we all remember what good years those were for the Democratic Party. Well, okay, '92 was better than '68 but '68 led to '72 and we all remember what a good year '72 was because '72 led to Watergate which led to Carter which led to my husband being elected in a landslide twenty short years later which led to the vast sexual-harassing right-wing conspiracy trying to assassinate me leading to overwhelming sympathy for me which led to my winning in a landslide the late assassinated Bobby Kennedy's former senate seat. And that has led to the inevitability of me being the the next President of the United States. Unless Barak Obama and his wife assassinate me next month. So that's why I'm staying in this race. Now why don't you all go ask Barak Obama to turn in those handguns he's been clinging to. Just to be on the safe side. Before May is over. Because we all remember what happened in June when LBJ, who freed the slaves, ordered the complete cessation of all air, naval and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam. That's why it was known as the "June Surprise" because, surprise, we won the Vietnam War and McCain and his fellow war criminal POWs were freed and that's why I'm staying in this thing until the bitter end. Assassination notwithstanding.

1jpb said..."They should note that the precise focus on the assassination aspect of June 1968 can only be an effort to show that candidates can be unexpectedly removed from the running."

No; it could be - and in context, clearly was - an observation that the frontrunner doesn't always get the nomination.

"They should let their audiences know that HRC's current position isn't similar to that of WJC in his 1992 primary. And, the 1968 example is completely irrelevant to this year, the nominating process/rules and timeline are TOTALLY different from our situation."

Which establishes, at most, that Clinton's comparison was inapt, not that she wasn't making the comparison noted above.

Hillary hanging around is a non-issue since even if she dropped out she would be the nominee if anything happens to Obama. Just another example of hillary's emptiness inside her soul and conscience. Enough people seing that is why she lost.

Either Hillary's comment provided a psychological insight into she would really like to see happen or, as Simon argues, what she really meant to say that history teaches us that the democratic nomination is seldom settled in May. If the former, she is indeed a ghoul. If the latter, she is stupid. Anyone with a room temperature IQ would know that the main stream media would have a field day with the language that she used to express a historical point. In either case, she has disqualified herself from the presidency.

"an effort to show that candidates can be unexpectedly removed from the running."

And, this:

"an observation that the front runner doesn't always get the nomination"

Are the same thing, in effect, when describing the Kennedy situation: you're agreeing with me when you think your disagreeing.

But, you should know that calling Kennedy a "front runner," similar to BHO would be a big mistake. Many argue that the party bosses of the time (who controlled nominations in many states) would have passed over Kennedy even if he had lived. The process of 1968 was nothing like we have today. This is why my summary is technically more precise than yours is, but really they both mean the same thing in the context of the Kennedy assassination.

Regarding Clinton, you greatly underestimate her knowledge. It is safe to say that a presidential candidate who is supposedly smart (although she did fail the bar in DC, not as impressive as the president of the Harvard Law review), and really good at details, would presumably know that the 1968 process is completely different than our current situation. Not to mention that this was a talking point that she's rolled out on multiple occasions, which would make you think that she would check the facts (of course there was the repeated Tuzla talking point, so you may be right, but ignorance is probably not the defense that she's looking for, it certainly wouldn't help with her being ready on day one argument.)

1jpb, as much as I like to seek consensus, I don't think we're agreeing. You're basically buying into the conception that Clinton was suggesting that Obama could be assassinated, I think, whereas I'm saying that, as M.T. Roberts' put it above, that she argued "that history teaches us that the democratic nomination is seldom settled in May." That argument may be flawed, but it was off-the-cuff, and I tend to think that as a general matter, extemporaneous remarks should be given some latitude, absent good reasons to do otherwise.

As to Clinton's accomplishments vs. Obama's, I read the Harvard Law Review (or, more often, the article index), and so far as I can tell, it seems to have been an intellectual lagoon for some time, at the vanguard of a broader but unappealing trend. Perhaps that assessment is unfair; either way, however, Obama's editorship of it is a nice thing to put on your resume, but not the sort of thing that qualifies one for the Oval Office. True, Clinton failed the D.C. Bar on her first attempt, but the bar exam - even the D.C. bar - isn't a walk in the park. How many attempts did it take you to pass the D.C. bar?

OK, we in the VRWC agree with the attack-dog Clinton supporters in the VLWC that this is much ado about nothing, but, one more time: so was Quale's "potatoe", Bush 41's scanner in the works, & Bush 43 as AWOL, & for that manner, Ike’s alleged Yogisms & Reagan's alleged lack of intelligence, all brought to the fore in a calculated way by the VLWC sleaze machine.

He who lives by the attack dog….

Funny, but Clinton supporters never had to be Clinton defenders for "misspokeries" until now that the MSM is in the tank for Obama & has turned against the person formerly known as “brillant”.

liberal/progressives are over represented this century with such things. Can you blame them for being a bit touchy?

I can't blame them for being touchy but I can blame them for projecting. I took all those remarks about assassination to refer to right-wing lunatics killing their messiah.

But your remark leaves out the several attempts on Republican presidents. Attacks on Nixon by Author Bremer in Ottawa and later by Samuel Beck whose idea was to fly a commercial airliner into the White House.

Attacks on Ford by Lynette Fromme, and later by Sara Moore.

Reagan who was hospitalized from being shot in the lung by Hinkley.

Aaaaand an attempt on Bush 41 by Vladimir Arutinian who threw a live Russian-made grenade at his podium, as well as reputedly but never actually proven, a plan if not an attempt by no other than Saddam Hussein himself. Sneaky bastard, was good at covering his malfeasance, some of it, anyway. And if you can't agree he tried, you can at least agree he wished and possessed the capability.

But whenever I think of assassinations, my mind takes me to the many number of times the CIA was supposed to have devised plans to off Fidel Castro. But that leads immediately to an anger at their failure and apparent ineptitude. Exploding cigars. Now that there's just plain funny. I think we finally got him though with a debilitating rigidifying Adidas Bionic track suit! Success at last.

As it turns out, the comment which inspired my two deleted postz WAS on this thread. I just assumed it was on another Althouse post thread, and in any case, they (along with the third, which never made it to post because it was then I thought: wait, am I on the right comments thread?) would have fit better--actually, quite well--on the Dick Martin post thread. Oh well. So it goes.

I feel that I am in the Twilight Zone - one of those weird episodes where the character is isolated from the world because they can't hear him/her....The hype around this comment is absolutely ridiculous. Diehards are still saying Clinton was trying to rally an assasin, even though Bobby, Jr and the SD newspaper that conducted the interview has clarified the context for all of us. The outrage now? She used the words assasin. Ok...And Obama is black. She wants a black man dead. HRC is a racist murderer.....And you guys were condemning Wright on the AIDS conspiracy theory. I think Wright was closer to the truth....still lightyears away, but closer nevertheless. Gotta go....Rod Serling is going to explain what's happening. Bye.....